Deflection/Diversion
We have applied much thought into what we are about to do for educational purposes in order to reveal to people of the public, how they have been given the wrong impression from insurance companies, and the experts as to how these all-knowing make the conclusions they do, with no worry of accountability to either the insured or their client insurance company.
We are going to have a Point-Counter Point session on this site. This will truly expose the forensic reports on how a reported stolen vehicle was last operated as questionable at the very least.
Yes, there will be those screaming "Ethics" only because they don't want people to see their fine work.
Here I will publish some of my reports countering their reports. Picture me as a pit bull with their reports. I don't let go. If they state something as fact, I demand to know the basis of that statement. If they cannot back their conclusions as fact, and yet their report was presented as factual enough to get someone charged with a crime or denied on their theft claim, they damn well be able to back it up or else, I will make them prove it.
I am an avid chess player. When I go after these goofs, I commonly go for checkmate.
I am either loved and respected or hated and feared. There is no middle ground.
If all this is considered bragging, so be it! I am just that confident. I know my limitations. I know what I know and what I don't know. I have lived and breathed auto theft for 17 years. I am a professional thief that does not steal cars. Am I that good? Oh yeah!
Just because the self-proclaimed expert locksmith ex-cop can't beat a transponder system does not mean it can't be done! He may believe that. Unfortunately for the insured, because of his ignorance though, innocent insureds are denied on their claim or possibly be charged with a felony because the insurance company doesn't want to honor the claim.
It is my opinion, that it happens that the insurance companies use their experts and the arm of the prosecution to get out of paying righteous auto theft claims.
When all of us are concerned about insurance fraud, we sometimes overlook other fraud. That fraud in an expert writing forensic reports based on "assumed fact" ,in which he never examined the vehicle. Yet, the insurance companies use these reports in court to deny the insured payment on the claim. I have a real problem with that.
It is common for insurance defense attorneys to attempt to attack me for not examining the vehicle when I am working for the plaintiff or criminal defense. Unlike the expert for the insurance company, I am not the first responder. In theory, if the insurance expert did his job properly, he would have already removed and retained the evidence. In that case, what is the point in me examining the vehicle years later after the initial examination?
Secondly, if the evidence was not removed from the vehicle, why is the insurance expert even allowed to testify? If he has not retained the ignition lock or whatever his testimony is surrounded by, how can it be tested by another expert? How is this evidence preserved for safe keeping?
It is all too common to see in an insurance expert's report on a reported stolen car, that the key was inserted into the lock (Destroyed the evidentiary value or at the least altered the evidence forever). Commonly leaves the ignition lock in the vehicle. How is this lock being prevented from more key insertions?
Commonly these investigations/examinations being performed under the title "Forensic" are just a ruse. What special background, training and experience does it take to insert a key into the lock? Yes, even a monkey can do this and yet in many cases this event is shielded under the title "Forensic."
There are many definitions for "Forensic." The two most common are: For the courts,, and to debate. Yet, because of the forensic TV shows out their we think of this as a magical term.
When examining a reported stolen vehicle to determine the last operation, the scientific method is supposed to be used. No you don't have to be a scientist. All you need to do is use common sense.
In the case of theft, you need to know all known hypotheses or theories to use in order so they can be eliminated until one fits. The problem with using a locksmith for this is that we need to rely on his life prism or experience as it relates to theft methods. Locksmiths commonly look at these cars as to how they would steal it, or make a key. The problem is that this is a very limited avenue.
Locksmiths have to look at one of these vehicles as to how a locksmith would steal a vehicle. They use assumed or perceived criteria for their examinations. It is assumed that a certain mark may or may not be made. If the mark is not there, then in their opinion the lock was not defeated and the vehicle was last operated with a key of the proper type.
If the lock reveals no internal damage, it was not defeated even though that specific lock did not need damage done to operate without a key. Wear is almost never considered.
The problem is that unless properly trained, locksmiths can't make a determination on how a reported stolen vehicle was last operated because they don't have any way to think like a thief. I know this makes it sound like I am the only one in this profession that thinks like a thief, and maybe I am. I am actively in review of theft issues , along with others that I have shared my experience with.
The only difference between me and a professional thief is that the professional thief steals 24/7 and I just demonstrate for court situations.
One of these "Anointed" experts out there, that is a locksmith, actually has a website that is inferring he steals cars. Who knows? Maybe he is making unauthorized keys and steals cars. I do not know for a fact one way or the other.
In fact, those that I have trained that were locksmiths "Locksmithing has nothing to do with theft." I didn't say that. They did. Why is it that a locksmith report on a stolen car cannot hold up to my scrutiny? The locksmiths take this personal and they shouldn't. It is just they cannot possibly support the statements they use in their conclusions.
All they do is call me names and attempt to degrade me every opportunity they get. The ex-cops locksmiths are the worst at this. Recently, I was called merely a mechanic, a back alley mechanic. I am not looking for their praise. I don't care, but if they can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen!
Their shortcomings make me money and I have nothing against them.
The ones that are the worst are those that built a proprietary (secret) process surrounding the lock and key even if the lock had nothing to do with how the vehicle was last operated. If the process is secret it cannot be reproduced which means it IS NOT scientific. Yes, there was a great effort, in my opinion, to defraud our court system into believing this process was scientific and yet it is just smoke and mirrors (snake oil). The website promoting this process reveals obvious damage with sheared wafers from a Chrysler lock that does not even require a microscope to see this obvious damage. Also pictured on this site is pins (tumblers) for a structure which has nothing to do with an automotive lock, but the photo looks impressive. The process is all about diversion. In fact, the ideas behind this process as it relates to real life remind me of the references brought about in the John Travolta movie "Sword Fish." Diversion and deflection.
Coupled with the P. T.. Barnum saying "There is a sucker born every minute," and this explains the process of last key used with the very general statement, "The vehicle was last operated with a key of the proper type." This is always assumed to be the insured's key.
It is our intention of putting up the hundreds of depositions, videos, reports and court transcripts of the expert locksmiths in this field that have gotten insureds denied on their theft claims from the US and Canada.
Any copyrights are not being violated because we are leaving the author's name and are addressed under fair use ,and this is not for any consideration on our part. The express purpose of this site and the information included is for educational purposes only.
If anyone reading this were to play the role of a juror, all we ask is that you apply the rules of common sense. A statement may be construed as fact. All you have to do is ask your self? Can that statement be supported by fact?
Example: Reported stolen vehicle recovered totally burned. Conclusion in the report-Vehicle last operated with a key of the proper type. (Some of these conclusions are supported by fictitious percentages denoting an error rate). Such a conclusion may state it is based on 95% or higher scientific certainty. Where do these impressive numbers come from? Right out of the air!!! I have many, but one of the reports I will be putting on this site involves a GM 10-cut ignition lock that suffered from fire damage. There are 9 wafers (tumblers) in this lock. The report states based on 95% or higher scientific certainty that the vehicle was last operated with a key of the proper type based on 95% or higher certainty.
Now, the first and the last wafers were never removed from this lock and examined under a microscope. This is the most and least worn wafers. Better yet, the wafers that were removed were examined and photographed at magnification ,however, the burned debris was never cleaned from the surface where the key would ride when inserted into the lock. Looked impressive though with is burned crap magnified.
Now, with all wafers examined being used as a 100% scale, what does not removing those two wafers take the real percentage rate instead of 95% to? .777.
In other words, such a report is meant to schmooth whoever reads it into believing that forensics actually played a role into the general statement of the vehicle being operated last with a key of the proper type.
Some of these statements are so ridiculous, but defense attorneys and prosecutors stand behind them because they have to.
Here is just an example of diversion on the part of these "Forensic" experts:
The rubber weather strips surrounding the frameless door glass are missing leaving a 1/4 to 1/2" gap between the front and rear door and is huge. This means any number of tools can be inserted into the passenger compartment to unlock the doors. Instead of considering this as a valid factor for forced entry, the expert removes the outside door lock and opines that the door lock is not damaged and forced entry was not done at the door lock!! This actually borders on fraud in my opinion on the expert's part!
An expert examines the ignition lock a 2005 Cadillac Escalade. There is no obvious damage to the ignition lock internal components. What he forgets to state is the ignition lock was found in the "unlocked" position without the key. (This is caused due to wear, a very common problem). This PASS LOCK factory-installed anti-theft system is totally reliant on the rotation of the ignition lock. If the ignition lock can be rotated in anyway the anti-theft system is over ridden. The "Forensic" expert ignores these facts and in order to get paid, states in his report that the lock was last operated with a key of the proper type!
This is deflection. Emphasis on the lock having no damage even though such damage did not have to be present.
The other facts surrounding this vehicle were that it was totally stripped!! The engine, transmission, wheels tires, interior were all missing!!! The insurance company deflected by requesting an ignition lock analysis on this reported stolen vehicle. The conclusions from the "forensic" expert are deflected to implicate the insured with the theft, and the theft claim is denied!
Here is another example Ford and all the experts I spoke with stated the Ford transponder system made the vehicle "unstealable." On 10/10/2000, I defeated this system where a transponder key was not needed to operate the vehicle for a judge on video!
My process was executed by other firms that I shared this information with. They all made videos of vehicles they bypassed the transponder system using my process. The consensus was that the process was in fact valid! Even a competitor that did not care for me begged me for the process because his client insurance companies were VERY concerned about this fact.
I supplied my process to him with the condition he would give Rob Painter full credit (which he never did) and his company too now knew how to bypass this system. (I have his tape).
Did I do anything special to formulate this process? Yes and no. I thought as a thief wanting to defeat this system. I studied the wiring schematics and found a back door.
So commonly these days it is because the locksmith, ex-cop does not have this knowledge, the system cannot be defeated. Insured's pay because of the expert's ignorance.
Any system designed by man can be defeated by man! I will place a video of a Chrysler SKIM (Sentry Key Immobilizer Module) flat out failing and the system did not work! No tricks. It just did not prevent the engine from starting without the programmed key.
Another very important factor to be considered when dealing with factory -installed "Anti-Theft" units. It usually is three years before the product designed actually gets out into the production line. This means there is three years in advance that someone can know about defeating such a system. The other problems are if the thief can defeat a Ford Ranger, he can defeat all Ford trucks!
These "Anti-Theft" systems DO NOT prevent theft and are in my opinion fraudulently marketed! In theory, they just make it a little more difficult to start the engine without the assigned programmed ignition key.
All these last key used examinations are based on the assumption the vehicle was driven from the reported theft scene!
If anyone were to ask me which region has the most problems with "Forensic" experts that cannot support their opinions even though this is a severe problem through out the US and Canada, I would say the State of Michigan and the two major "Forensic" firms there.
These firms generate millions in insurance assignments a year and it is so common that the expert has no automotive background and yet he is considered an expert in automotive and determining how a reported stolen vehicle was last operated. These firms commonly favor their client the insurance company.
You can bet, I am exposing them as well as all the others.
Please be aware as well, I do not claim to know everything. I am learning each day just how much I don't know. I AM learning every day!